Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] interconnect changes for 5.5 | From | Georgi Djakov <> | Date | Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:44:05 +0200 |
| |
On 8.11.19 г. 12:39 ч., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 05:42:13PM +0200, Georgi Djakov wrote: >> Hi Greg, >> >> On 11/7/19 16:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 02:46:53PM +0200, Georgi Djakov wrote: >>>> Hi Greg, >>>> >>>> This is a pull request with interconnect patches for the 5.5 merge window. >>>> All patches have been for a while in linux-next without reported issues. The >>>> details are in the signed tag. Please consider pulling into char-misc-next. >>> >>> I don't know about >>> 0003-interconnect-Disallow-interconnect-core-to-be-built-.patch here. >>> Shouldn't you just fix up the dependancies of subsystems that rely on >>> this? We are moving more and more to kernels that "just work" with >>> everything as modules, even on arm64 systems. So forbiding the >>> interconnect code from being able to be built as a module does not feel >>> good to me at all. >> >> Thank you for commenting on this! The initial idea was to keep everything as >> modular as possible. The reasons behind this change is that other core >> frameworks like cpufreq (and possibly others) want to call the interconnect >> APIs. Some of these frameworks are built-in only and it would be easier to >> handle dependencies if interconnect core built-in too. Now each user that >> can be built-in has to specify in Kconfig that it depends on INTERCONNECT || >> !INTERCONNECT. > > That's fine, when those subsystems start to use those apis, that > dependency needs to be added. Nothing new here, and you forcing it to > either be "on or off" isn't going to change that. Let's do it correctly > please.
Alright! That matches with what we do today. Thanks for the guidance!
BR, Georgi
| |